Recently the dreaded "Q-factor" reared its ugly head, in a discussion of aluminum cotterless cranks. For those few fortunate enough to have been shielded from this stuff, "Q" is the width between the pedals. Less is supposed to be better. Nah, I don't remember if it is measured from the center of the pedal or the inner edge or the outer edge of the crank arm. And I don't care.
This issue sort of saddens and amuses me at the same time, because it seems to be one of the many areas of bicycle "engineering" that was driven by folklore instead of measurement, for decades. along the lines of the "importance" of chain tension is friction losses, and the "critical" need to minimize chain deflection. It just seems that the field must have been really starved for any kind of empirical engineering of the product (as opposed to the factory production methods) for a long time.
Now, I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I did a little experiment one cold day, and it is one you can try if you have snow and cross-country skis. Just go ski, and measure the separation of your tracks. After all, X-country uses muscles pretty much like riding, and works with the same skeleton. My track is at least as wide as the Q on any of my bikes, so I quit worrying and enjoyed the ride.
your mileage may vary, but I'm not gonna worry about the Q factor of my vintage bikes. As long as the cranks clear the chainstays, of course.
harvey "show me the data" sachs
mcLean va usa